Best movie of this year hands down!

Sadly Over-hyped

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

This movie might be based on the real kidnapping in 1978, but it fits perfectly our murky times. Greed without limits and boundaries produced a whole new species of semi sociopaths. Some of the most savvy and successful people in high business have morality of a Corsican thug. Perhaps they possess a tad more polish and fashion sense, but not much more. Mr. Graff, the victim of this heinous crime doesn't invoke much sympathy. He is vain, cruel and deeply immoral. Exactly what power executive needs. As soon his real nature comes out in press, his business "friends" turn their back on him. It is ironic that the only remotely kind character is one of the kidnappers. Possibly the one assigned the good cop role. Nevertheless this wealthy, affluent world encased in marble and gold, seems empty and void of any real felling. Nothing comes for free in this world, above all money and privilege.

In my opinion this doesn't work as a film but would have been better as a mini series. It spends a lot of time developing interesting characters but hardly any of these characters motivations are explored in any great depth. This means it should have been a lot shorter with lots of action and limited character building, or longer with the characters fully explored. For instance his wife plays a major role but when he is released we see her a couple of times and then he is talking of divorce. Or we could have seen more of the back-stabbing that went on in the board room from his so called 'trusted' assistant. But surely we could have learnt more about the kidnappers, we weren't even let in to see who ran the crew never mind the chance to see their discussions over decision making. Part of me thinks that the director intended a certain amount of anonymity in the kidnappers, in my opinion it just doesn't work in this case making them banal rather than terrifying. I remember hearing once that a good story teller 'shows instead of tells' I think the director was trying this but it just didn't work with a film of this length with so many characters.

'RAPT' is a nasty and effective French thriller, although the nastiest moment comes early on and is subsequently not trumped. A rather unlikeable millionaire businessman is kidnapped; the film follows both his ordeal, and also the response of his family and associates. There are some thriller conventions here, particularly the slightly unbelievable professionalism of the kidnappers, but it's an effective movie nonetheless: tense and fast-moving, but also an interesting exploration of what might happen when someone loses all control of the narrative of their own life (and to wit, someone who has been used to doing exactly what he wants). I'm not sure there's any moral here, beyond the general unpleasantness of mankind (and more particularly, the rich), but the film not only entertains, but does so in an intelligent and provocative way.

I think some of my good friends here with the other reviews need to watch the film again. Some, not all.Yes, it's a somewhat slow and quiet film, beautifully shot and acted. Though supposedly of some sort of "thriller" genre it is actually a "thrillingly" excellent character study. Not the sort of example of humanity that is gratifying to see however.The main character's kidnapping and two months in captive isolation are essentially a metaphor for his own solitary confinement in his cold narcissism. He is no less his own prisoner than if he had contrived the kidnapping himself, as the police have reason to suspect.When his wife, and daughters, seek some sort of contact and contrition from him for the fact that his betrayals are now a matter of public disgrace, he quite coldly declares that it is himself alone who deserves pity and solace, and that he will explain to no one. His faithful dog is treated with more affection and care.You would naively think that his "ordeal" would effect some sort of transformation of his personality. Sorry, personalities, especially this kind, do not change so easily. He loses one of his fingers, but otherwise is intact. (Want some cheap symbolism? The finger is gone, but he easily lights up that big cigar of self-indulgence.) He knows, and we know, that the kidnappers have left him with a means not just to satisfy them with his money, but to "do the right thing" in preventing the further violent mayhem they threaten. Innocents will be killed at random. He does have the money: his shares of the company have been sold and his lawyer congratulates him for how extremely wealthy he still is. The kidnappers want their full 50 million.The film ends perfectly, I think. He sits alone in his palatial room on a regal chair, with his cigar. His wife is divorcing him, his daughters have been distanced by his coldness and empty claim of love. The "Calypso" message arrives. He sits. My understanding of his character, as it has been portrayed so consistently, is that he thinks to himself something like "that is no concern of mine."